Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v London Borough Tower Hamlets and CT (IS & HB)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
JudgeJudge Poynter
Neutral Citation[2018] UKUT 25 (AAC)
CourtUpper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
Subject MatterCapital,Capital - Joint holdings,Capital - Ownership/Possession,Poynter,R
Date19 January 2018
Published date02 February 2018
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v LB Tower Hamlets & CT (IS & HB) [2018] UKUT 25 (AAC)
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. CIS/1294/2016 &
CH/1291/2016
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER
Before Upper Tribunal Judge Poynter
DECISION
The Secretary of State’s appeal does not succeed.
The decisions made by the First-tier Tribunal on 20 September 2015 under reference
SC160/14/01965 & SC124/15/00529, following a hearing at East London on
26 August 2015 did not involve the making of any material error of law.
Therefore those decisions continue to have effect and, during the periods covered by
the decisions of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets dated 24 June 2014, and of
the Secretary of State dated 4 June 2014, the claimant’s entitlement to (respectively)
housing benefit and income support fell to be calculated on the basis that her capital
did not exceed £6,000.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. The London Borough of Tower Hamlets ("LBTH") and a decision maker acting on
behalf of the Secretary of State both decided that the claimant had capital in excess
of £16,000 and that therefore (respectively) she was not entitled to housing benefit
("HB"), which she had claimed on 3 September 2013, or to income support ("IS")
from and including 23 May 2014.
2. The claimant appealed against both those decisions and, on 20 September 2015,
following a hearing on 26 August 2015, the First-tier Tribunal ("FTT"), issued a
combined decision notice and written statement of reasons allowing the appeals and
valuing the claimant’s capital at less than £6,000. As £6,000 is the lower capital limit
for both IS and HB, the effect of the FTT’s decision was that the claimant’s
entitlement to both those benefits was unaffected by her capital.
3. The Secretary of State now appeals to the Upper Tribunal against the FTT’s
decisions in both appeals with the permission of District Tribunal Judge Tootell. As a
result of case management directions given by Upper Tribunal Judge Knowles (as
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v LB Tower Hamlets & CT (IS & HB) [2018] UKUT 25 (AAC)
2
CIS/1291/2016 & CH/1294/2016
she then was) LBTH is the first respondent to those appeals and the claimant is the
second respondent.
Factual background
4. The judge set out his principal findings of fact in the following terms:
“A the [claimant] was born on 21 03 1970
B she is a single claimant for IS purposes with two minor
children, H… and V…
C she is a single claimant for HB purposes
D she claimed… IS on 01 10 2008 and… HB on 05 09 2013
E she gave her address as … ("number 6")
F number 6 was a property owned by [LBTH]
G the [claimant] was the secure tenant of number 6
H her occupation of number 6 began many years ago
I she was said to be in possession of capital assets in excess
of the permitted maximum
J the capital was in the form of a property at …("number 57")
K the [claimant] bought number 57 in December 2005
L number 57 was purchased with funding from a mortgage
and also from Mr N… G… (“Mr G”)
M a restriction was placed on number 57 by… Mr G in April
2006
N the [claimant] vacated number 6 temporarily in 2009 due to
infestation
O that vacation was known to the [the Secretary of State and
LBTH]
P she had an intention to return to live at number 6
Q she had no intention to surrender the tenancy at number 6
R the [claimant] returned to occupy number six in August
2013”.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • VMcC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (IS)
    • United Kingdom
    • Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
    • 22 Febrero 2018
    ...on the evidence before it.” See also Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v London Borough of Tower Hamlets & CT (IS & HB) [2018] UKUT 25 (AAC) and the discussion therein (at paragraphs 30-47) of the earlier Deputy Commissioner’s decision in The conditions for a Quistclose trust 41. So ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT